On July 19, 2006, President George Bush, surrounded by families with children born from frozen embryos, vetoed legislation that would have eased the current rules on federal funding for stem cell research.
On July 19, 2006, President George W. Bush vetoed legislation that would have loosened the current strict rules on federal funding for research on embryonic stemcells. It was the first veto of his presidency, and it dealt with probably the single most controversial area of current scientific research. Both sides of the debate claimed to occupy the moral high ground. Supporters of the bill, which would have allowed use of more embryonic stemcells in federally funded research, argued that embryonic stemcells represent the most promising avenue to finding cures for serious illnesses that threaten the lives and well-being of millions of people. Opponents of the legislation, including President Bush, maintained that destroying embryos, which in principle could develop into living human beings, is morally unacceptable.
A vote in the House of Representatives a few hours after Bush vetoed the bill failed to gather the two-thirds majority needed for an override; the count was 235-193 in favor of the bill, 51 votes short of what was needed.
Pros and Cons
In 2001, Bush announced that federal funds could be used to support research only on embryonic stem cell lines that had been developed up to that point. This policy was put forward as a compromise that would allow research to move forward, but at the same time ensure that government money was not used to destroy any more embryos. Supporters of stem cell research came to see the policy as stifling, arguing that the number of approved lines was fairly small to start with and in practice was a good deal smaller, as many of the lines proved unsuitable for research for one reason or another. Furthermore, if stem cell research progresses to the point of clinical testing, none of the federally approved lines will be usable. All were originally cultured with animal cells in the medium, which makes them contaminated for use in humans. (The number of stem cell lines approved by the President in 2001 for federal funding was originally estimated at over 60, but far fewer have proven useful. [See Contaminated: the Stem-Cell Shake-Up, February 2005]. Supporters of the research further insisted that federal funding is vital because the field is just developing, and while it holds immense promise, the uncertainty of such a new technology makes commercial interests leery to invest. Addressing ethical concerns, they noted that the embryos that are destroyed to obtain stemcells are microscopic clusters of just a few scores of cells. Finally, they argued that the U.S., a traditional leader in new medical developments, was ceding an area of research that might well prove to be of paramount importance in the 21st century to competing countries.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research replied that the potential benefits of embryonic stemcells are unproven, that there are other types of stemcells that might yield comparable benefits without involving the destruction of an embryo, and that destroying embryos was simply wrong. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said on vetoing the bill. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." The legislation Bush vetoed would have allowed federal funding on stem cell lines derived from embryos that were held by fertility clinics but were slated for destruction. Fertility clinics routinely produce far more embryos than end up being used to create pregnancies for people struggling to conceive by normal methods; the clinics vary in what they do with these "surplus" embryos, but many are ultimately destroyed. [See What Happens to Spare Embryos?, December 2004].
Work Cited: •www.allaboutpopularissues.org•www.ncsl.org/programs/health •www.southtexascollege.edu
Web Research Paragraph
I particularly liked this site: www.allaboutpopularissues.org because it provided most of the information that I needed for my slides. It had most of the stem cell legislation history and about how it changed over the years. Unlike other sites, it provided easy-to-read information that was short and easy to understand. There was nothing that I did not like about the information that this site gave on stem cells, and I would definitely recommend it to another student who is the lawyer of this topic.
(my Work Cited and Web Research Paragraph at at the bottom)
Stem Cell Research Vetoed
by Chris Larson http://www.2facts.com/TSOF/science-home-feature.asp</span>
Both sides of the debate claimed to occupy the moral high ground. Supporters of the bill, which would have allowed use of more embryonic stem cells in federally funded research, argued that embryonic stem cells represent the most promising avenue to finding cures for serious illnesses that threaten the lives and well-being of millions of people. Opponents of the legislation, including President Bush, maintained that destroying embryos, which in principle could develop into living human beings, is morally unacceptable.
A vote in the House of Representatives a few hours after Bush vetoed the bill failed to gather the two-thirds majority needed for an override; the count was 235-193 in favor of the bill, 51 votes short of what was needed.
Pros and Cons
In 2001, Bush announced that federal funds could be used to support research only on embryonic stem cell lines that had been developed up to that point. This policy was put forward as a compromise that would allow research to move forward, but at the same time ensure that government money was not used to destroy any more embryos. Supporters of stem cell research came to see the policy as stifling, arguing that the number of approved lines was fairly small to start with and in practice was a good deal smaller, as many of the lines proved unsuitable for research for one reason or another. Furthermore, if stem cell research progresses to the point of clinical testing, none of the federally approved lines will be usable. All were originally cultured with animal cells in the medium, which makes them contaminated for use in humans. (The number of stem cell lines approved by the President in 2001 for federal funding was originally estimated at over 60, but far fewer have proven useful. [See Contaminated: the Stem-Cell Shake-Up, February 2005].Supporters of the research further insisted that federal funding is vital because the field is just developing, and while it holds immense promise, the uncertainty of such a new technology makes commercial interests leery to invest. Addressing ethical concerns, they noted that the embryos that are destroyed to obtain stem cells are microscopic clusters of just a few scores of cells. Finally, they argued that the U.S., a traditional leader in new medical developments, was ceding an area of research that might well prove to be of paramount importance in the 21st century to competing countries.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research replied that the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are unproven, that there are other types of stem cells that might yield comparable benefits without involving the destruction of an embryo, and that destroying embryos was simply wrong. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said on vetoing the bill. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."
The legislation Bush vetoed would have allowed federal funding on stem cell lines derived from embryos that were held by fertility clinics but were slated for destruction. Fertility clinics routinely produce far more embryos than end up being used to create pregnancies for people struggling to conceive by normal methods; the clinics vary in what they do with these "surplus" embryos, but many are ultimately destroyed. [See What Happens to Spare Embryos?, December 2004].
Work Cited:
•www.allaboutpopularissues.org •www.ncsl.org/programs/health
•www.southtexascollege.edu
Web Research Paragraph
I particularly liked this site: www.allaboutpopularissues.org because it provided most of the information that I needed for my slides. It had most of the stem cell legislation history and about how it changed over the years. Unlike other sites, it provided easy-to-read information that was short and easy to understand. There was nothing that I did not like about the information that this site gave on stem cells, and I would definitely recommend it to another student who is the lawyer of this topic.